6 ms·

Can you explain what happened?

• sneak 7y ago
  Zero-burden-of-proof state government edict (an Indiana tax warrant) based entirely in fiction caused them to throw up their hands and say “there’s nothing we can do!” as they took $150 for Chase’s lawyers’ time and handed the remainder over to Indiana in full.
  • pcwalton 7y ago
    > Zero-burden-of-proof state government edict (an Indiana tax warrant) "Zero-burden-of-proof state government edict" describes the property tax bills every single homeowner gets in the mail and is expected to pay. Pay your taxes.
    • sneak 7y ago
      No; property taxes require a burden of proof: you must own property. That property must be assessed in some way. In this instance I had no tax liability whatsoever. Zero. No business operations whatsoever in or touching or with their state. Indiana invented numbers out of thin air. Most of a year later I got the money back from Indiana as they agreed on this point (after they skimmed about $1k for “collections fees” incurred as a result of their illegal seizure). Chase was happy to oblige them with a rubber stamp.
  • delfinom 7y ago
    Unfortunately, even Google would concede and hand over the money because it's backed by Citi-Group. Financial institutions listen to court and state orders blindly.
    • jstanley 7y ago
      Court orders, sure. But the state should have to go through the courts the same way everybody else would.
      • EpicEng 7y ago
        And you think they did not in this case?
  • Someone1234 7y ago
    So a State government, using lawful authority, for taxes owed ordered Chase to hand over your money, and you frame this as Chase "stealing" your money? I'll acknowledge the $150 fee that you ultimately pay is high, maybe even unreasonable, but I feel like your original post was a little disingenuous nonetheless. Your own explanation of events reads like you tried to ignore a tax liability until you gave them no choice but to seize it. If you believed it was erroneous you should have worked with the State of Indiana to resolve the error (or create a payment plan saving $150 in fees).
    • quaquaqua1 7y ago
      It sounds like you aren't considering the possibility that Indiana did not have a legitimate reason to confiscate the money, such as a numerical error on a tax form, which has happened to me.
      • Someone1234 7y ago
        I did acknowledge that. That's why I said they should have worked with the State to resolve the error, rather than ignore it until a seizure was required. Seizures are expensive for the state too. If you're working with them on the tax liability (inc. disputing it) they likely aren't going to go the seizure route as a first port of call.
        • quaquaqua1 7y ago
          There are situations where the mail that the State sends does not properly reach the taxpayer. I suppose if they confiscate the funds and then are open to swift resolution of the error, that's not so bad, but I'm surprised they don't choose wage garnishment or some other way of contacting the taxpayer before just "surprise, the money is ours!"
      • wbronitsky 7y ago
        In this argument, that point does not matter. OP said that Chase stole money from them. That is not true; banks lawfully complying with government orders is not theft. Banks, or really any private business, do not protect you from the government.